Posted by mbriese on 1/30/2018 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 1/30/2018 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 1/30/2018 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm fine with the VH vs H distinction. It gives you a better idea of where you stand.

The change should be that in a 2 team battle, there shouldn't be a 75 vs 25% chance. It would be better if it were capped at 40%.

Agree completely with this -- the longshot win is the major problem right now. I would add that to help lower prestige teams in that circumstance, they should give certain preferences more power -- i.e., if the player "wants rebuild," A prestige teams should have next to no shot; if the guy "wants to play" and you're not offering a start, you should lose.

THIS has been my favorite suggested change to recruiting for a while - prioritizing preferences.

I'm not interested in the "remove H vs. VH battles" discussion though. I'd understand the concern if all of a sudden a ton of B6 teams were pulling up lame and there was a run of lucky lower D1 teams winning NTs that resulted from a bunch of RNG decisions, but that's not the case. I'd be interested to see someone argue this point that doesn't stand to benefit from it, but just thinks it makes logical sense.

Anyone who comments on this topic has "skin in the game". Otherwise, you wouldn't bother.

I didn't say "skin in the game", I said they stand to benefit from it. People that have B6 teams that are tired of losing occasional VH vs. H battles are saying it's time to get rid of VH vs. H battles. I would be interested in seeing someone who coaches non-B6 teams share this opinion based on the merit of its logic. Use context clues, Mike.

Well, if you read the first two posts, you can see that zorzi and I have differing opinions for differing reasons.

zorzi
Lower prestige teams can do everything right and the higher prestige can still sneak in at high and win

Me
As a lower prestige team, I want to be able to sneak in at high and win

See? I don't know if zorzi is arguing as a low prestige B6 or not. But he's arguing it hurts lower prestige teams and I'm arguing it helps them.

zorzii is basically saying that lower prestige teams shouldn't have a shot at the top recruits for their own good. Using context clues, I see that he has a Clemson team with a lot of walk-ons. As you've pointed out in past threads, zorzii is only going to complain about things and ask for changes in the game that will make his team better.

You're a lower prestige team, and like me, you want to be able to have a shot at higher recruits even if there's a chance of a higher prestige team swooping in and taking them with much less effort. We're both biased, as we only have low prestige teams in D1. zorzii is biased, as his high prestige B6 team is losing a lot of battles resulting in walk-ons.

What I'm wondering is whether or not there's someone who primarily manages high prestige B6 teams who agree with our point of view, or someone who primarily manages low prestige D1 teams who agree with zorzii's point of view purely based on logic. Otherwise, this thread is going to continue to be a circle-jerk of "well I want the game to be this way so that my team can be better" comments.

That isn't what I read into zorzi's post but, yes, he only asks for things that benefit him directly. He disguised it pretty well.

DAMN YOU, ZORZI!!!!

I don't really care for the way it's set up, but have learned to adapt to it. If it hasn't changed by now, it never will, so don't really concern myself with it.

"I didn't say "skin in the game", I said they stand to benefit from it. People that have B6 teams that are tired of losing occasional VH vs. H battles are saying it's time to get rid of VH vs. H battles. I would be interested in seeing someone who coaches non-B6 teams share this opinion based on the merit of its logic. Use context clues, Mike."

Had a B6 team for 50 seasons. Don't see an issue with current set up. Although Seble should have seen that human nature will make people unhappy with random results.

Now can we get back to talking EEs.

Posted by mbriese on 1/30/2018 4:19:00 PM (view original):
zorzii is basically saying that lower prestige teams shouldn't have a shot at the top recruits for their own good. Using context clues, I see that he has a Clemson team with a lot of walk-ons. As you've pointed out in past threads, zorzii is only going to complain about things and ask for changes in the game that will make his team better.

You're a lower prestige team, and like me, you want to be able to have a shot at higher recruits even if there's a chance of a higher prestige team swooping in and taking them with much less effort. We're both biased, as we only have low prestige teams in D1. zorzii is biased, as his high prestige B6 team is losing a lot of battles resulting in walk-ons.

What I'm wondering is whether or not there's someone who primarily manages high prestige B6 teams who agree with our point of view, or someone who primarily manages low prestige D1 teams who agree with zorzii's point of view purely based on logic. Otherwise, this thread is going to continue to be a circle-jerk of "well I want the game to be this way so that my team can be better" comments.

I actually think the other way around. I am saying a lower prestige team b6 or not will play its cards right and get screwed by a lazy higher prestige in panic barely getting to H and destroying the great work it did. If you read my posts, you would know I am talking about my Alabama team.

Then what I thought you were getting at was right.

But you do recognize that your suggestion removes the lower prestige team getting a shot at a high rated prospect if the high prestige shows more than a passing interest, right?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 5:09:00 PM (view original):
Then what I thought you were getting at was right.

But you do recognize that your suggestion removes the lower prestige team getting a shot at a high rated prospect if the high prestige shows more than a passing interest, right?

It does to sone extent. If I had your chance of getting the 19 we player you got, I was all-in. Not even thinking about it.

Yeah but then you come here and complain how your draft class is **** because of dice rolls. Then give up the team. If I miss on Jones, I had Smith/Slater fallbacks so I had a better team than the season before.

It's really just a matter of how you want to play the game. I'm not expecting to win a NT at UNC-A. I need good players not "all or nothing". All or nothing coaches are going to complain bitterly about dice rolls.

Thinking about this, it's funny.

You and benis are advocating "all in" or "max out".

You constantly complain about losing a dice roll and ruined classes. It is possible to cultivate back-up options.

Benis ******* and moans about not having time to open options in RS2. It is possible to open those options in RS1.

Jones aside, let's say I lost,, I signed 1 primary option, one secondary option and a career back-up designed to play D and score in the post. In addition, I opened all actions on 3 other players. One could be a starter and the other two are potential 2 year back-ups/2 year starters..

Had I gone all in on Jones, and still lost, it's quite possible I've got nothing but regrets.

Posted by mbriese on 1/30/2018 2:58:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 12:33:00 PM (view original):

Posted by mbriese on 1/30/2018 12:13:00 PM (view original):

Posted by johnsensing on 1/30/2018 12:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 10:03:00 AM (view original):
I'm fine with the VH vs H distinction. It gives you a better idea of where you stand.

The change should be that in a 2 team battle, there shouldn't be a 75 vs 25% chance. It would be better if it were capped at 40%.

Agree completely with this -- the longshot win is the major problem right now. I would add that to help lower prestige teams in that circumstance, they should give certain preferences more power -- i.e., if the player "wants rebuild," A prestige teams should have next to no shot; if the guy "wants to play" and you're not offering a start, you should lose.

THIS has been my favorite suggested change to recruiting for a while - prioritizing preferences.

I'm not interested in the "remove H vs. VH battles" discussion though. I'd understand the concern if all of a sudden a ton of B6 teams were pulling up lame and there was a run of lucky lower D1 teams winning NTs that resulted from a bunch of RNG decisions, but that's not the case. I'd be interested to see someone argue this point that doesn't stand to benefit from it, but just thinks it makes logical sense.

Anyone who comments on this topic has "skin in the game". Otherwise, you wouldn't bother.

I didn't say "skin in the game", I said they stand to benefit from it. People that have B6 teams that are tired of losing occasional VH vs. H battles are saying it's time to get rid of VH vs. H battles. I would be interested in seeing someone who coaches non-B6 teams share this opinion based on the merit of its logic. Use context clues, Mike.

Hi.

I have three non B6 D1 teams and I think the VH vs H could use some tweaking.

I've had the same opinion even before I had any D1 teams back when Beta finished.

I would prefer to remove the overall cap on HVs and move to a per cycle cap. Something like 5 HVs maximum per cycle.

This would prevent the poaching HV "lovebomb" and encourage people to get in on a guy earlier (although would be problematic for new coaches taking over in 2nd session)

But it'd allow people to choose to not be in dice rolls if they prioritize a guy highly enough and want to use all their resources on one dude.

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 5:34:00 PM (view original):
Yeah but then you come here and complain how your draft class is **** because of dice rolls. Then give up the team. If I miss on Jones, I had Smith/Slater fallbacks so I had a better team than the season before.

It's really just a matter of how you want to play the game. I'm not expecting to win a NT at UNC-A. I need good players not "all or nothing". All or nothing coaches are going to complain bitterly about dice rolls.

It's not the same when you rebuilding the strat is different. You want to raise prestige so you have options in recruiting. Check my UMass. I mean, I have time. It will get tough around B- to B. Now I am building up my core and classes. The thing is that a stud our two speed up the rebuild. Worth it

Posted by Benis on 1/30/2018 7:05:00 PM (view original):
I would prefer to remove the overall cap on HVs and move to a per cycle cap. Something like 5 HVs maximum per cycle.

This would prevent the poaching HV "lovebomb" and encourage people to get in on a guy earlier (although would be problematic for new coaches taking over in 2nd session)

But it'd allow people to choose to not be in dice rolls if they prioritize a guy highly enough and want to use all their resources on one dude.

I like the idea. But say you have 19k, 5 schollies, it's around 80 hvs on a one player... near campus. So you could increase the cap, but wouldn't it help teams with more schollies, they would do the walk-on strat and make it tougher on distance signing? I still think the diff between close and away should be shrunk.

Posted by zorzii on 1/30/2018 7:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/30/2018 5:34:00 PM (view original):
Yeah but then you come here and complain how your draft class is **** because of dice rolls. Then give up the team. If I miss on Jones, I had Smith/Slater fallbacks so I had a better team than the season before.

It's really just a matter of how you want to play the game. I'm not expecting to win a NT at UNC-A. I need good players not "all or nothing". All or nothing coaches are going to complain bitterly about dice rolls.

It's not the same when you rebuilding the strat is different. You want to raise prestige so you have options in recruiting. Check my UMass. I mean, I have time. It will get tough around B- to B. Now I am building up my core and classes. The thing is that a stud our two speed up the rebuild. Worth it

And an "all or nothing" completely stops a rebuild.